This is the only coverage I've seen so far from the show:
Hornografi og heldigitalt på hifi-asylet - kultur - Dagbladet.no
I must warn you that the language here is Norwegian. But I tell you, excepts from the facts, the text is just rubbish. And nothing here about your products, John. But you can always enjoy the pictures....
The figures from the text: 300 exhibitors, 900 brands and 20,000 m2 (about 200,000 square feet). Wish I where there
URL: https://ssl.highendsociety.de/english/highend/highend.php
Enough Bleating....
QP facts so far...
The construction comprises a resistor (0.025 ohms, tantalum type ?) coaxially surrounded by a ceramic (ceramic type unknown ?) tube coated with a conductive coating (15 ohms) having solderable metallisation ring contacts enabling fitting of end cups causing parallel connection of the two conductive components.
The metal oxide damping statement confers with my experimentation, long prior to hearing anything of QP's or Jack Bybee.
Parallel current paths with differing VP is something interesting/curious....does the QP constitute a sort of parallel LCR circuit with noise absorption at dc through to hf ?.
Please everybody, just plain ignore the weird descriptions and red herrings propagated by those other than J.B. and focus on the maybe real information that has been released.
We all know that Stuart has measured them as a simple resistor....others claim that is not the whole story.
There are enough clever minds around here to help flesh out what is happening....how about it ???.
Eric.
QP facts so far...
The construction comprises a resistor (0.025 ohms, tantalum type ?) coaxially surrounded by a ceramic (ceramic type unknown ?) tube coated with a conductive coating (15 ohms) having solderable metallisation ring contacts enabling fitting of end cups causing parallel connection of the two conductive components.
There are other comments of QP's reducing 1/f noise that is signal modulated/dependent.
The metal oxide damping statement confers with my experimentation, long prior to hearing anything of QP's or Jack Bybee.
Parallel current paths with differing VP is something interesting/curious....does the QP constitute a sort of parallel LCR circuit with noise absorption at dc through to hf ?.
Please everybody, just plain ignore the weird descriptions and red herrings propagated by those other than J.B. and focus on the maybe real information that has been released.
We all know that Stuart has measured them as a simple resistor....others claim that is not the whole story.
There are enough clever minds around here to help flesh out what is happening....how about it ???.
Eric.
Pavel,
Slightly off topic. I am playing with a demonstration of distortion and local vs global feedback, in my very scant spare time.
So as an example if we have an inverting amplifier that follows Vo= 1000 x (Vi + .01Vi exp2 + .02 Vi exp3 + .0025 Vi exp4), what is the output if we add feedback to get a gain of 10? (Shades of Baxandall)
This is part one of the issue and the solution is open for everyone.
ES
What was it again, Vo(fb)=Vo/(1+Vo/10)?
I didn't do the substitution, need to go to dinner with my lady for her birthday party
jan didden
Last edited:
It is sad that many here write their own 'scenarios' and presume them to be true, without ANY evidence or even hearsay. They just make them up, just like Francisco Sizzi made up his opinion about the moons of Jupiter. This is called (by me) 'working from a conclusion'. They can be interesting, even funny, but I can't find any truth in these accusations, of Bybee or the 'Stereophile' reviewer.
What I do not understand is that I am a noted audio designer, who at this time has 4 separate designs on display far away in Munich. Later, it will be Asia. Why, if I can manage to make workable and even exceptional audio designs not allowed to openly discuss my particular design philosophy here on this thread?
I am told that reviewers and I are prejudiced about IC's, BUT a good review is coming out in 'Stereophile' on a design using IC's as the fundamental gain block. What happened?
Both Charles Hansen and Dick Sequerra use ADI IC's on occasion, but they independently modify the function of these devices so that they run open loop! WHY? This is the question that I continually try to address here, to the derision of others who are a lot more invested in the concept that op amps are virtually perfect, just they way they are designed to use, and the rest of us are crazy. I think not, and many here would do well to learn from our examples.
Remember, they are EXAMPLES, not daydreams.
I am told that reviewers and I are prejudiced about IC's, BUT a good review is coming out in 'Stereophile' on a design using IC's as the fundamental gain block. What happened?
Both Charles Hansen and Dick Sequerra use ADI IC's on occasion, but they independently modify the function of these devices so that they run open loop! WHY? This is the question that I continually try to address here, to the derision of others who are a lot more invested in the concept that op amps are virtually perfect, just they way they are designed to use, and the rest of us are crazy. I think not, and many here would do well to learn from our examples.
Remember, they are EXAMPLES, not daydreams.
Last edited:
> but they independently modify the function of these
> devices so that they run open loop! WHY?
Logic would tell us (if we credit the above) that it's
the high amount of feedback rather than the I.C.
circuitry it'self that sounds bad.
I seem to remember a Walt Jung circuit from way
back using a 071 with little or no feedback.
> devices so that they run open loop! WHY?
Logic would tell us (if we credit the above) that it's
the high amount of feedback rather than the I.C.
circuitry it'self that sounds bad.
I seem to remember a Walt Jung circuit from way
back using a 071 with little or no feedback.
I can't be bothered to do the maths in detail, but assuming the input Vi does not get too big (say, |Vi|<1) then the distortion terms are small so the only significant 'Baxandall' order multiplication terms will come from the first set of multiplications. The feedback will then roughly reduce distortion by 100.simon7000 said:
Vo ~ 10 x (Vi + .0001Vi^2 + .0002Vi^3 + .000025Vi^4 + O(5) )
If Vi gets large, then the higher order terms would be significant and the algebra would get messy. I'm too old to do messy algebra!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.